The patterning or microstructure of a situation where subjects were presented with two sets of information from two independent ‘high decision’ information processing tasks, was investigated. Thirty-two subjects worked at the five-choice serial-response task (designated by instructions to be the main task), whilst being presented with a transformation task which required that seven had to be added to a presented auditory digit (designated by instructions to be the secondary task). Results suggested that subjects were not able to process two streams of information in parallel, and that the way in which the attention process was ordered was partly a function of task instructions and partly a function of the random occurrence of each digit in relation to the on-going serial task. Results also gave support to the view that the locus of disruption was the production of the response to the secondary task. Explanations of this effect are considered.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllportA.AntonisB.ReynoldsP., 1972, “On the division of attention: A disproof of the single channel hypothesis”, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 124, 225–235.
2.
ArmstrongD. M., 1968, A Materialist Theory of Mind (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London).
3.
BahrickH. P.NobleM.FittsP. M., 1954, “Extra-task performance as a measure of learning a primary task”, Journal of Experimental Psychology48, 298–302.
4.
BahrickH. P.ShelleyC., 1958, “Time sharing as an index of automisation”, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56, 288–293.
5.
BertelsonP.TisseyreF., 1969, “The time course of preparation: Confirmatory results with visual and auditory warning signals”, Acta Psychologica, 30. Also in Attention and Performance II, Ed. KosterW. G. (pp. 145–154).
6.
BroadbentD. E., 1954, “Some effects of noise on visual performance”, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 6, 1–5.
7.
BroadbentD. E., 1956, “Listening between and during practised auditory distractions”, British Journal of Psychology, 47, 51–60.
8.
BroadbentD. E., 1958, Perception and Communication (Pergamon Press, London).
9.
BroadbentD. E., 1965, “A re-formulation of the Yerkes-Dodson Law”, British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 18(2), 145–157.
10.
BroadbentD. E., 1971, Decision and Stress (Academic Press, London).
11.
BroadbentD. E.HeronA., 1962, “Effects of a subsidiary task or performance involving immediate memory by younger and older men”, British Journal of Psychology, 53, 189–198.
12.
BrownI. D., 1962, “Measuring the ‘spare mental capacity’ of car drivers by a subsidiary auditory task”, Ergonomics, 5, 247–250.
13.
BrownI. D., 1964, “The measurement of perceptual load and reserve capacity”, Transactions of the Association of Industrial Medical Officers, 14, 44–49.
14.
BursillA. K., 1958, “The restriction of peripheral vision during exposure to hot and humid conditions”, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 10, 113–129.
15.
ComstockE., 1973, “Processing capacity in a letter matching task”, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 100, 63–72.
16.
CrossmanE. R. F. W., 1956, “The information processing of the human operator in symbolic and non-symbolic control processes”, Information Theory and the Human Operator, publication WR/D56 (Ministry of Supply, England).
17.
CrossmanE. R. F. W., 1960, “The information capacity of the human motor system in pursuit tracking”, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 1–16.
18.
DavisR., 1957, “The human operator as a single channel information system”, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 9, 119–129.
19.
DavisR., 1962, “Choice reaction times and the theory of intermittency in human performance”, Quarterly Journal Experimental Psychology, 14, 157–166.
20.
EllsJ. G., 1973, “Analysis of temporal and attentional aspects of movement control”, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 99, 10–21.
21.
FisherS. A., 1972, “A ‘distraction effect’ of noise bursts”, Perception, 1, 223–236.
22.
FisherS. A., 1973, “The ‘distraction effect’ and information processing complexity”, Perception, 2, 79–89.
23.
HermanL. M., 1969, “Effects of second signals on response time to first signals under certainty and uncertainty”, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 80, 106–112.
24.
HermanL. M.KantowitzB. H., 1970, “The psychological refractory effect: Only half the double stimulation story”, Psychological Bulletin, 73, 74–88.
25.
HermanL. M.McCauleyM. E., 1969, “Delay in responding to the first stimulus in the ‘psychological’ refractory period' experiment: Comparisons with delay produced by a second stimulus not requiring a response”, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 344–350.
26.
HickW., 1952, “On the rate of gain of information”, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4, 11–26.
27.
HockeyG. R. J., 1970, “Effect of loud noise on attentional selectivity”, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 22, 37–42.
28.
HymanR., 1953, “Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time”, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45, 188–196.
29.
JohnstonW. A.GreenbergS. N.FisherR. P.MartinD. W., 1970, “Divided attention: A vehicle for monitoring memory processes”, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 83, 164–171.
30.
KahnemanD., 1973, Attention and Effort (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).
31.
KarlinI.KestenbaumR., 1968, “Effects of number of alternatives on the psychological refractory period”, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 167–178.
32.
KayH.WeissA., 1961, “Relationship between simple and serial reaction time”, Nature, 790–791.
33.
KerrB., 1973, “Processing demands during mental operations”, Memory and Cognition, 1, 401–412.
34.
KristoffersonA., 1965, “Attention in time discrimination and reaction time”, Technical Report CR 194, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Houston, Texas, USA.
35.
KnowlesW. R.RoseD. J., 1963, “Manned lunar landing simulation”, IEE Convention on Military Electronics, California, USA.
36.
LeonardA., 1959, “5-Choice serial reaction apparatus”, Report 326, Medical Research Council, Applied Psychology Unit, Cambridge.
37.
MillarK., 1975, “Processing capacity requirements of stimulus encoding”, Acta Psychologica, to be published
38.
MillerG. A.GalanterE.PribramK. H., 1960, Plans and the Structure of Behaviour (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York).
39.
MichonJ., 1967, “Timing in temporal tracking”, Institute of Perception RVO TNO, National Defence Research Organisation TNO Soesterberg, The Netherlands.
40.
MorayN., 1969, Attention: Selective Processes in Vision and Hearing (Hutchinson Educational, London).
41.
NickersonR. S., 1965, “Response time to the second of two successive signals as a function of absolute and relative duration of intersignal interval”, Perceptual Motor Skills, 21, 3–10.
42.
NobleM.TrumboD.FowlerF., 1967, “Further evidence on secondary task interference in tracking”, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 79, 146–149.
PosnerM.BoiesS., 1971, “Components of attention”, Psychological Review, 78, 391–408.
45.
PosnerM.KeeleW., 1969, “Attention demands of movement”, in Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of Applied Psychology (Swets and Zeitlinger, Amsterdam).
46.
PosnerM.KleinR., 1973, “On the functions of consciousness”, in Attention and Performance IV, Ed. KornblumS. (Academic Press, New York).
47.
PoultonE. C., 1958, “Measuring the order of difficulty of visual-motor tasks”, Ergonomics, 1, 234–239.
48.
ReynoldsD., 1964, “Effects of double stimulation: Temporary inhibition of response”, Psychological Bulletin, 62, 333–347.
49.
ReynoldsD., 1966, “Time and event uncertainty in unisensory reaction time”, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 286–293.
50.
SandersA. F.KeussP. J. G., 1969, “Grouping and refractoriness in multiple selective responses”, Acta Psychologica, 30, 177–194.
51.
SanfordA. J., 1970, “Rating the speed of a simple reaction”, Psychonomic Science, 21 (6), 333.
52.
ShalliceT., 1972, “Dual functions of consciousness”, Psychological Review, 79(5), 383–393.
53.
ShannonC. E.WeaverW., 1949, The Mathematical Theory of Communication (University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois).
54.
SmithM., 1967a, “Theories of the ‘psychological refractory period’”, Psychological Bulletin, 67(3), 202–213.
55.
SmithM., 1967b, “The ‘psychological refractory period’ as a function of a first response”, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19, 350–352.
56.
SmithM., 1969, “The effect of varying information on the psychological refractory period”, Acta Psychologica, 30, 220–231.
57.
TrumboM.MiloneF., 1971, “Primary task performance as a function of encoding retention and recall in a secondary task”, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 91, 272–279.
58.
TrumboD.NobleM., 1970, “Secondary task effect on serial verbal learning”, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 85, 418–424.
59.
TrumboD.NobleM.SwinkJ., 1967, “Secondary task interference in the performing of tracking tasks”, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73, 232–240.
60.
WelfordA. T., 1952, “The ‘psychological refractory period’ and the timing of high speed performance—a review and a theory”, British Journal of Psychology, 43, 2–19.
61.
WelfordA. T., 1959, “Evidence of a single-channel decision mechanism limiting performance in a serial reaction task”, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11, 193–210.
62.
WelfordA. T., 1967, “Single channel operation in the brain”, Acta Psychologica, 27, 5–22.
63.
WelfordA. T., 1973, “Stress and performance”, Ergonomics, 16(5), 567–580.
